The “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church in abandoning an increasing number of Catholic doctrines.
When the conciliar church’s leaders first began to abandon the Catholic Faith, they started with certain “hot button” conciliar errors (such as religious liberty) but increasingly denied many other Catholic doctrines. Similarly, the “new” SSPX started with a few “hot button” conciliar errors1 but now is abandoning an increasing number of Catholic doctrines. For example, the “new” SSPX’s doctrinal errors increasingly include attacks on Catholic virtues. The “new” SSPX increasingly:
Inside the front cover of the November-December 2016 Angelus Magazine, Fr. Wegner declares that the Virtue of Hope is being sure we will go to heaven (which is a pernicious conciliar doctrine). Informed Catholics will immediately recognize that this is the vice of presumption, not the Virtue of Hope! Here is Fr. Wegner’s entire statement, which he printed in extra-large letters:
Faith makes us know God: we believe in Him with all our strength but we do not see Him. Our faith, therefore, needs to be supported by the certitude that some day [sic] we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever. The virtue of hope gives us this certitude by presenting God to us as our infinite good and our eternal reward.6
Vigilant Catholics might recognize that Fr. Wegner’s false definition of Hope is substantially identical to the modernist New Saint Joseph First Communion Catechism ’s claim that we will all go to heaven. Here are this bad catechism’s words:
Someday we will all be together in heaven....7
Who could be surprised that the “new” SSPX sells8 this modernist catechism?9
A vigilant Catholic sees immediately that the “new” SSPX gives a false explanation of the Virtue of Hope. St. Paul warned Catholics to “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. ” Philippians, 2:12 (emphasis added).
The great St. Paul tells us we should fear and should tremble, as we strive for salvation. The “new” SSPX says the opposite, viz., we have nothing to fear because we are certain we will be saved.
The great St. Paul showed that everyone—including him—should have this fear and lack of certitude we will be saved. He told us:
I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.10
A picture emerges of the “new” SSPX’s position that “we all go to heaven”. Whereas St. Paul and faithful Catholics know that our salvation is not certain (while we are alive) and so we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, the “new” SSPX and the conciliar church teach the heresy that they are sure they will go to heaven. Such (false) conciliar confidence (of salvation) echoes the same false confidence of one of the worst popes in history, Pope John XXIII. As he lay dying, he declared:
I will watch its [viz., Vatican II’s] joyful conclusion from heaven, where I hope, rather, where I am certain the Divine Mercy will draw me. 11
Below, we examine more thoroughly the Virtue of Hope and we see how the modernists (including the “new” SSPX) falsify the truth and distort this theological virtue.
Let us first examine the object of Hope. That is, what do we hope for?
Collecting these truths, it is clear that the primary object of hope is a future good, difficult but possible to obtain. This principal object of hope is possession of God in heaven.
The Virtue of Hope has secondary objects too, e.g., the difficult (but possible) good of attaining the celibacy of the religious life. These secondary objects are “under” (ordered to) the primary object: possession of God in the happiness of heaven.16
Among all things that are difficult but possible to obtain, we can obtain some of them by ourselves (i.e., through our own efforts). For example, a particular student might be able to obtain an A+ grade on a test, if he studies very, very hard.
But there are other things we cannot obtain except with the help of others. For example, we can obtain heaven only with God’s help.17
The (natural) Virtue of Magnanimity helps us obtain good and difficult things in so far as we can achieve them through our own efforts. By contrast, the Theological Virtue of Hope helps us obtain good and difficult things which we can achieve only with God’s help.18
Of course, we have other helpers to aid us in attaining heaven, e.g., Our Lady, any saints, and our guardian angel. But those helpers are all secondary helpers “under” our Principal Helper, God.19
The Virtue of Hope gives a Catholic unlimited and complete trust in God’s help,20 that he will not be damned because God failed to help him. Our unlimited and complete Hope is not deceived or vain, although a person who has the Virtue of Hope might fail to obtain heaven because Hope is not the certitude of getting to heaven (that is the vice of presumption). Rather, Hope is the unlimited and complete certitude (trust) that God’s help will not fail us. If we fail to get to heaven, it is not because God failed to help but because we failed to use His help.21 In other words, Hope gives us the certitude that God will not fail us, although, of course, we might fail ourselves.22
Faithful Catholics must work out their salvation in fear and trembling, as St. Paul instructs us. But this fear does not contradict our unlimited and complete Hope (trust) in God. Our fear is that we will fail ourselves and will not use God’s help (although we are certain He will give it). This fear is filial fear.23
We see the “new” liberal SSPX falsifies the Virtue of Hope. As quoted above, the Angelus teaches that:
The virtue of hope gives us this certitude... we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever.”
In other words, the “new” SSPX falsely teaches that Hope makes us sure we will go to heaven.
The Catholic truth opposes this conciliar error. True Hope is being sure God will give us the help we need to get to heaven. But it would be rash to fully trust ourselves, and to be certain that we will not reject God’s help (through sin). As St. Paul teaches us (above), we must genuinely fear and tremble that we will lose heaven through sinning (i.e., rejecting God’s help).
Conclusion: The “new” liberal SSPX falsifies the Theological Virtue of Hope (as the conciliar church does).
Having seen that the “new” SSPX is not promoting real Hope, let us look at the vice of presumption and compare it to what the “new” SSPX promotes.
As explained above, the object of hope is a difficult but possible future good, which can be achieved either through one’s own efforts or with God’s help. The reasonable hope of obtaining that good (e.g., an A+ in a test) by one’s own efforts pertains to the virtue of Magnanimity. The reasonable hope of obtaining that good (e.g., heaven) with God’s help, pertains to the Theological Virtue of Hope.
By contrast, presumption is the unreasonable hope (trust) of obtaining such future, difficult goods. If a person unreasonably hopes to obtain something by his own efforts, this presumption is a vice contrary to the Virtue of Magnanimity.24 For example, a short, permanently-crippled boy has this first type of presumption if he hopes (trusts) to become a professional NBA basketball player by his hard work.
If a person unreasonably hopes to obtain some good with God’s help, this second type of presumption is a vice contrary to the Theological Virtue of Hope. For example, a person has this second type of presumption if he hopes (trusts) to exceed Our Lady in heavenly glory. Another example of this type of presumption is a person who hopes to have purity of soul without avoiding unnecessary occasions of impurity.
As shown above, eternal happiness with God is a difficult good which a man can possibly obtain with God’s help. If a man has certitude he will go to heaven, then he has unreasonable hope, i.e., presumption:
When a person unreasonably presumes to achieve a difficult good by his own efforts, this arises from vainglory, since he unreasonably attempts things beyond his power. When a person unreasonably presumes to achieve a difficult good by God’s help, this presumption arises from pride, because this presumption flows from an excessive judgment of one’s own greatness.26
The “new” SSPX teaches that:
The virtue of hope gives us this certitude... we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever.
In other words, the “new” SSPX says Hope makes us sure we will go to heaven.
As shown above, this is not the Virtue of Hope! The “new” SSPX’s certitude of salvation might arise from an unreasonable confidence in their own efforts. This presumption is the vice contrary to the Virtue of Magnanimity and arises from vainglory. (See above).
More likely, however, the “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church and has unreasonable confidence that God will save them without repentance or that God will save them even if they fail to make their own necessary efforts (cooperating with God’s help). This is the vice of presumption which is contrary to the Theological Virtue of Hope and is a sin against the Holy Ghost.
Either way, the “new” SSPX is promoting a (false) certitude of salvation which is really the vice of presumption. This is not the Catholic Virtue of Hope, which is coupled with filial fear, as St. Paul and St. Thomas explain.27
Let us pray for the poor, lost, “new” SSPX leaders and their sheep, that they will once again embrace the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. But don’t learn doctrine from the “new” liberal SSPX, unless you want to learn presumption and other pathways to hell!
The “new” SSPX posted a recent photo of mini-skirted see-through-skirted dancers and their director (who is wearing pants that cling to her like a coat of paint). These dancers provided entertainment for a recent SSPX event and are shown posing for their picture with a smiling Bishop Fellay. Here is the photo: http://sspx.org/en/media/photos/gallery-christ-king-sanford-fl
See many other ways the “new” SSPX now condones immodesty, proved from quotes and pictures published in SSPX sources, with citations to those SSPX publications, and analyzed.
The (supposedly) “traditional” groups associated with the “new” SSPX are liberalizing just as the N-SSPX is. How could it be otherwise? If those groups were to stand against the N-SSPX’s liberalism, the N-SSPX would soon shun them. On the other hand, because those groups choose not to oppose N-SSPX liberalism, they inexorably slide into this same liberalism.
One example of this is the Dominican sisters’ slide on modesty. On the front of their latest newsletter (April-May 2017), the Dominican sisters of Massena printed a color photo of two of their high school girls, both with their knees exposed. Although we could assume that the girls accidentally exposed their knees, the Dominicans chose to send this picture all around the country (to their entire mailing list)—showing they set bad example and are callous to immodesty. They display the new SSPX-compliant laxity toward immodesty.
Some of our readers might consider this decline of modesty (in the Domincans, the “new” SSPX and the conciliar church) as normal and acceptable. This only shows how gradualism affects even traditional Catholics. Just as there was a slow, steady moral deterioration in the 1970s (continuing to this day), there is now the same decline among many who consider themselves traditional Catholic.
↑Further analysis of this modernist catechism’s grave errors. ↑
Here is how St. Thomas explains this Catholic doctrine:
[T]he good which a man hopes to obtain, has the aspect of a final cause.... Now hope regards eternal happiness as its last end.... [I]t is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one’s last end, but only as something referred to final happiness.
God [is]... the object of hope and the other theological virtues, since, by the virtue of hope, we trust in God's help, not only to obtain any other goods, but, chiefly, to obtain God Himself, as the principal good.
The first quote is from: Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.4, respondeo. The second quote is from: Summa, IIa IIae, Q.19, a.9, ad 2.
↑St. Thomas explains it this way:
[H]ope regards eternal happiness as its last end.... [T]he principal end is the last end, while the secondary end is that which is referred to an end.... [I]t is not lawful to hope for any good save happiness, as one’s last end, but only as something referred to final happiness.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.4, respondeo.
↑St. Thomas explains:
Now a thing is possible to us in two ways: first, by ourselves; secondly, by means of others, as stated in [Aristotle’s treatise called The Nicomachean ] Ethics, ch.3. Wherefore, in so far as we hope for anything as being possible to us by means of the Divine assistance, our hope attains God Himself, on Whose help it leans.
Quoted from: Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.1, respondeo, (bracketed words added). ↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this important truth:
[The natural Virtue of] Magnanimity tends to something arduous in the hope of [i.e., aspiring to] obtaining something that is within one’s power, wherefore its proper object is the doing of great things. On the other hand, hope, as a theological virtue, regards something arduous, to be obtained by another’ help, as stated above.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.5, ad 4 (bracketed explanation added).
[H]ope makes us adhere to God, as the source whence we derive perfect goodness, i.e. in so far as, by hope, we trust to the Divine assistance for obtaining happiness.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.6, respondeo.
↑Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this important truth:
[T]he principal, efficient cause our principal helper getting to heaven] is the first agent, while the secondary efficient cause is the secondary and instrumental agent [i.e., a secondary helper].... Now Hope regards... the Divine assistance [i.e., God] as the first cause leading to happiness.
[I]t is unlawful to hope in any man, or any creature, as though it were the first cause of movement towards happiness. It is, however, lawful to hope in a man or a creature as being the secondary and instrumental agent through whom one is helped to obtain any goods that are ordained to happiness. It is in this way that we turn to the saints, and that we ask men also for certain things; and for this reason, some are blamed in that they cannot be trusted to give help.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.4, respondeo, (bracketed explanation added).
↑Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this important truth:
[H]ope has no mean or extremes, as regards its principal object, since it is impossible to trust too much in the Divine assistance.Summa, IIa IIae, Q.17, a.5, ad 2 (emphasis and bracketed explanation added). ↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this important truth:
That some who have hope fail to obtain happiness, is due to a fault of the free will in placing the obstacle of sin, but not to any deficiency in God’s power or mercy, in which hope places its trust.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.18, a.4, ad 3.
↑God does not give grace to everyone, e.g., to unbaptized babies. See this explanation. But the Virtue of Hope is only possessed by those who have already received grace. The Theological Virtue of Hope assures such persons (who have received grace) that God will not fail in His help, although they might fail themselves and damn themselves. ↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this important truth:
Filial fear is not opposed to the virtue of hope: since thereby we fear, not that we may fail of what we hope to obtain by God’s help, but lest we withdraw ourselves from this help. Wherefore filial fear and hope cling together, and perfect one another.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.19, a.9, ad 1 (emphasis added).
↑Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
Presumption seems to imply immoderate hope. Now the object of hope is an arduous possible good: and a thing is possible to a man in two ways: first by his own power; secondly, by the power of God alone. With regard to either hope there may be presumption owing to lack of moderation. As to the hope whereby a man relies on his own power, there is presumption if he tends to a good as though it were possible to him, whereas it surpasses his powers, according to Judith, 6:15 : “Thou humblest them that presume of themselves.” This presumption is contrary to the virtue of magnanimity which holds to the mean in this kind of hope.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.21, a.1.
↑Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
But as to the hope whereby a man relies on the power of God, there may be presumption through immoderation, in the fact that a man tends to some good as though it were possible by the power and mercy of God, whereas it is not possible, for instance, if a man hope to obtain pardon without repenting, or glory without merits. This presumption is, properly, the sin against the Holy Ghost, because, to wit, by presuming thus a man removes or despises the assistance of the Holy Ghost, whereby he is withdrawn from sin.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.21, a.1. ↑
Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:
[P]resumption is twofold: one whereby a man relies on his own power, when he attempts something beyond his power, as though it were possible to him. Such like presumption clearly arises from vainglory; for it is owing to a great desire for glory, that a man attempts things beyond his power, and especially novelties which call for greater admiration. Hence [St.] Gregory [the Great] states explicitly that presumption of novelties is a daughter of vainglory.
The other presumption is an inordinate trust in the Divine mercy or power, consisting in the hope of obtaining glory without merits, or pardon without repentance. Such like presumption seems to arise directly from pride, as though man thought so much of himself as to esteem that God would not punish him or exclude him from glory, however much he might be a sinner.
Summa, IIa IIae, Q.21, a.4, respondeo (bracketed words added for clarity).
↑St. Paul teaches us to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Philippians, 2:12.
St. Thomas teaches that “filial fear and hope cling together, and perfect one another.” Summa, IIa IIae, Q.19, a.9, ad 1.
↑